Restraint does not remove the need for war, it intensifies it.
The following was made as a comment by C. Gee on our post below, A lethal terrorist ambush, about the attempt Sunday to break Israel and Egypt’s blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza with a flotilla of ships under the auspices of Turkey.
We are moving it to our front page because what it says needs to be said:
Turkey insinuated itself into the ME “peace”. Under that cover it is promoting Muslim/Iranian interests. It is an agent provocateur and will undermine and humiliate Israel wherever it can.
There were no repercussions for Turkey when it refused entry to US troops during the Iraq war. The Turkish bluff at being a NATO ally – or a candidate for Europe – should be called. It is clear Turkey is a paid-up member of the North Korea-Iran axis. It has nuclear ambitions of its own, I have no doubt.
The Israeli government should demand an apology from Turkey – for attempting to break the blockade and for the ambush and attempted kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. If they do not receive such an apology, Israel should regard the incident as an act of war. Certainly Israel should reciprocate any summoning or recall of ambassadors.
If anything should wake Israel up to its peril, it is this incident, coinciding as it does with the US endorsement of the non-proliferation conference statement. Israel is isolated. It can expect no help from Obama. On the contrary, Obama will use this incident as cover for his stand against Israeli “intransigence”. Expect Obama to talk about being slapped in the face by Israel; about how Israel has sabotaged Obama’s peace efforts and sanctions efforts. Expect a cram-down of the two-state solution. Expect more statements concerning Iraqi air-space and the interception of Israeli bombers. ( But above all, expect more statements concerning “the unbreakable bond between America and Israel”. )
The Israelis – boarding the ship with paint-ball rifles and pistols – were ambushed by their own and the West’s liberal moral vanity as much as by the terrorist-supporting “activists”. Over and over again, the Israelis have tied their hands behind their backs, have ceded to their enemies and acceded to their friends. They have fought humanitarian wars – on the ground, rather than from the air – costing Israeli lives to minimize civilian casualties. They have turned back from Lebanon before the job was done. Each time Israel stops short of victory because of “moral” pressure, it escalates the nature of the final reckoning. Thanks to decades of holding back on war, the war that Israel has to fight next must be extremely violent, convincingly lethal. From paint-balls to, no longer unthinkably, nukes.
If Israel does not act decisively against Iran now, it will be unable to, ever. It cannot wait for a regime change in America. Turkey will make sure that the UN sanctions against Iran (feeble as they were ever going to be) will be postponed for the world to decry Israel. But who are we fooling? Sanctions were never going to halt Iran’s nukes. Obama knows that. For all we know, Iran already has a bomb – whole, from North Korea.
With North Korea playing out its own provocations (unmet), testing to make sure the US will do nothing, and Turkey/Iran doing the same in the Middle East, the Obama policy of trying to make America liked will result either in war – or Israel’s surrender. The truly awful realization is that a huge number of people in America, including Jews, will not think the price for being liked is too high.
We are in potentially greater peril now than in the 1930s.
The best and fullest account we’ve found so far of what happened early Monday morning when ships making for Gaza “to break the blockade” were intercepted by the Israeli navy, is by Melanie Phillips and can be read here.
She rightly describes the flotilla as a terrorist ambush.
She points out forcefully how the West’s deliberate blindness to Israel’s predicament is deeply damaging to itself.
It is becoming ever more clear that Islamist terror attacks like this are fiendishly staged theatrical events in which the western media – and beyond them, western governments — play an absolutely essential role in the drama. If those media and governments refused to swallow the lies and instead called operations like this and the players behind it for what they actually are, such terrorist operations would not happen. The Islamist strategy of war against Israel is carefully calibrated to deploy the most effective weapon in its armoury in the cause of jihadi violence – the western media. Right on cue, western governments accordingly deliver their own script in condemning the victims of terror for defending themselves. And so, courtesy of the west’s fifth columnists, yet another nail is driven into the west’s own coffin.
In the list of “America’s Wars” at a site giving a brief history of Memorial Day, the war in ex-Yugoslavia is omitted.
The American Revolution
War of 1812
Spanish American War
World War I
World War II
The Persian Gulf War
Polemicists on the left often assert that America fought no wars when Bill Clinton was president. There seems to be a desire on their part to forget the fierce engagements in Kosovo and Bosnia when Americans, as the major NATO contingent, fought on the side of the Muslims. The war in ex-Yugoslavia lasted from 1991 to 1995. For the last two years of it, Bill Clinton was president. In 1999, from March 24 to June 10, NATO bombed the Serbs to protect the Muslim Kosovars, and that action too was the decision of President Clinton.
Is the Democratic Party embarrassed about it?
If so, they should be. It was wholly unnecessary for Americans to be involved in the conflict. It was an intervention less “legitimized” by the disgusting United Nations than the Iraq war. No American interests whatsoever were involved.
No wonder it’s been dropped down the memory hole.
How many Americans died in it?
We hope that they too are remembered today at Arlington National Cemetery and throughout the land.
The huge mosque to be built next to Ground Zero is intended to be an insult to the nation.
And that is what it is.
But a protest rally against it, planned for June 6, is not to be permitted.
From Creeping Sharia:
The organizers of a massive June 6 rally opposing the Ground Zero mosque are not allowed to protest at their planned location in Zuccotti Park …
The anti-mosque rally was initially pitched as a gathering for 9/11 family members, and the city approved it several weeks ago.
But once it became clear that the event would be a protest against Cordoba House, a 13-story mosque and community center slated to rise near ground zero, the city withdrew the permit …
Pamela Geller, executive director of Stop Islamization of America, said the protest would go forward as planned.
“We’ve cleared all the legal hurdles the city requires for a rally,” she said …
Based on the online response to the rally so far, it appears that hundreds, if not thousands, of people could be planning to attend the June 6 rally. …
Stop Islamization of America is helping potential attendees connect via its website. A post on carpooling has drawn 54 responses since Monday, with people planning to come from as far away as California, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri and Michigan.
Geller slammed the “insensitive” mosque plans at Community Board 1’s meeting Tuesday night.
“This mega mosque is going up on sacred ground,” she told the crowd of several hundred people. “This is an insult.” …
While the number of people who will turn up at the June 6 protest is hard to predict, hundreds of people are discussing it on Twitter, YouTube and other sites, and more than 85,000 people have joined a Facebook group opposing the mosque.
Creeping Sharia urges all those who can to go and protest despite the ban:
The dhimmitude and submission to Islam is pathetic. Not only is it beyond shameful how America fails to even attempt to prevent another 9/11 from happening but gives Muslims special protections while preventing Americans from even voicing their disgust at such treasonous behavior. Find a reason to get to the area June 6 – go.
John Brennan, who is Deputy National Security Adviser – Obama’s chief adviser on counter-terrorism[!] – instructs the nation that the terrorist enemy should not be described as jihadist because, he says, jihad” does not mean “holy war” but only “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”, and “there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” He insists that “those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in ‘religious terms’.”
Even if, like the Fort Hood jihadist for instance, they shout “Allahu Akbar” as they commit their mass murders? (Enter Fort Hood massacre in our search slot for several posts on this Islamic atrocity.]
Is Brennan an idiot, or does he think everyone else is?
Here is today’s list of murderous terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam. It comes from that excellent, reliable, informative site The Religion of Peace, which publishes such a list every day:
2010.05.28 (Lahore, Pakistan) – Orthodox Sunni terrorists stage a bloody grenade and firearms assault on two mosques belonging to a minority sect. Over eighty worshippers are murdered.
2010.05.28 (Mogadishu, Somalia) – Two children are among three civilians blown to bits by Islamic militia bombers.
2010.05.27 (Mosul, Iraq) – Mujahideen gun down a civilian and mortar a factory, wounding eleven people.
2010.05.27 (Bajur, Pakistan) – A married couple and their son are brutally gunned down in their home by Islamic fundamentalists.
2010.05.26 (Mogadishu, Somalia) – Six people are counted dead following an al-Shabaab militia attack around a city square.
2010.05.26 (Mosul, Iraq) – Three policemen are murdered by Mujahideen.
These are all actions of Muslims pursuing jihad, a duty their religion lays on them.
We wonder what Brennan thinks the Taliban, with whom tens of thousand of American soldiers are engaged in battle, are all about?
Or – expert as he claims to be on counter-terrorism – what he thinks the motive was of the Muslims who carried out the attacks on 9/11?
Much as Brennan and Obama may hate the fact, that was a deeply religious act.
This video is from Answering Muslims. It includes an imaginary picture of a mosque-dominated New York, circulated by Muslims in America soon after 3,000 people were killed by Muslims on 9/11.
On the proposal that a mosque be built near the site of the World Trade Center, destroyed by Islamic terrorists on 9/11 in the name of their religion, ABC News reported on May 25, 2010:
In a heated, four hour meeting tonight, Community Board 1, which represents the area of lower Manhattan that includes Ground Zero, voted 29-1 in favor of the proposal. There were 10 abstentions. …
The board’s 12-member Financial District committee unanimously voted in favor of the plan earlier this month.
The president of the United States does not like the country he leads. He may sometimes feel the need to say or do something to suggest that he has America’s interests at heart, but the weight of evidence that he does not accumulates and becomes too massive to miss. Not only does he apologize for America abroad, he even has his envoys deplore its laws in talks with foreign regimes, as Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner did recently to the Communist Chinese. And he personally endorsed the criticism of the same laws – Arizona’s new legislation dealing with illegal immigration – made by Mexico’s President Calderon, when the two of them stood side by side on the White House lawn.
And now it emerges that he initiated or at the very least advocated the agreement that Iran made with Brazil and Turkey to have some uranium enriched for it – a ploy that his administration condemns as an effort to stall new UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. The sanctions would be weak, and very unlikely to stop Iran making nuclear bombs, but the administration boasts of getting Russia and China to vote for them.
Obama performed this outrageous, underhand act last month in a letter to President da Silva of Brazil.
The New York Times reports:
Brazilian officials on Wednesday provided a full copy of the three-page letter President Obama sent to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil in April, arguing that it laid the groundwork for the agreement they reached in Tehran.
“There continues to be some puzzlement” among Brazilian officials about why American official[s] would reject the deal now, a senior Brazilian official said. “The letter came from the highest authority and was very clear.”
So there was a fourth party to the agreement, which was announced one day before the US presented its draft resolution on Iran sanctions to the Security Council.
As it was the work of all four leaders, Prime Minister Erdogan and Presidents Ahmadinejad, da Silva, and Obama, it should rightly be called the Iran-Brazil-Turkey-US Agreement.
Jonathan Tobin, writing at Commentary-Contentions, points out:
If the mere fact of this new deal wasn’t enough to undermine international support for sanctions, the revelation that Brazil acted with the express written permission of Obama must be seen as a catastrophe for international efforts to restrain Tehran. Why should anyone take American rhetoric about stopping Iran seriously if Obama is now understood to have spent the past few months pushing for sanctions in public while privately encouraging third parties who are trying to appease the Iranians?
What is the point of government statistics if they’re not reflecting the truth?
It seems that various ruses are being practiced to make unemployment figures look less bad.
Why? Does the floundering Obama administration really imagine it can deceive the nation about unemployment?
It can only make a difference to the shortage of jobs by changing its disastrous economic policies, not with monkey business like these pathetic little tricks described by John Crudele and taken from his report in the New York Post:
Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.
Labor doesn’t check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.
One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor. …
Here’s a note from a Census worker … :
“John: I am [was] on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.
“I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.
“I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.
“A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. …”
And here’s another:
“John: I worked for (Census) and I was paid $18.75 (an hour) …
“I worked for about six weeks or so and I picked the hours I wanted to work. I was checking the work of others. While I was classifying addresses, another junior supervisor was checking my work.
“In short, we had a ‘checkers checking checkers’ quality control. I was eventually let go and was told all the work was finished when, in fact, other people were being trained for the same assignment(s).
“I was re-hired about eight months later and was informed that I would have to go through one week of additional training.
“On the third day of training, I got sick and visited my doctor. I called my supervisor and asked how I can make up the class. She informed me that I was ‘terminated.’ She elaborated that she had to terminate three other people for being five minutes late to class.
“I did get two days’ pay and I am sure the ‘late people’ got paid also. I think you would concur that this is an expensive way to attempt to control sickness plus lateness. …
I have found it interesting that if someone works one hour, they are included in the labor statistics as a new job being full. …”
There’s more – read it all.
To those who feel morally good because they buy and consume only “organic” food, this may come as a most uncomfortable truth: you cannot be both FOR universal organic farming and FOR feeding the hungry millions.
And you need not worry that your health will suffer if you eat mass-produced foods. It’s a misconception that organic food is better for your health than the kind grown with chemical aids. It’s just more expensive.
This report by the Center for Consumer Freedom explains:
Another study, another dose of reality for organic-only foodies. A review published this month in the prestigious American Journal of Clinical Nutrition finds that the evidence from previous studies … indicates that organic food isn’t any healthier than ordinary, conventionally grown food.
This follows on the heels of, and supports, a similar review last summer from the same team. That review, released by Britain’s Food Standards Agency, came to the same conclusion after the authors sifted through 162 peer-reviewed research articles from the previous five decades.
As you might expect, the review last summer came under instant criticism from groups that promote organic foods by making health claims. So who’s to say who’s right? Writing in the Institute of Food Technologists’ journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety this spring, Rutgers University professor Joseph Rosen analyzed the marketing and health claims made by organic proponents. After noting that experts at the Mayo Clinic and American Dietetic Association don’t find any real benefits in organic food, Rosen concludes: … Consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money.
And … let’s just dispose of the ridiculous idea that the whole world could go organic if we all agreed to do it. Limited crop yields mean organic agriculture simply can’t feed the world. University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen (widely used today) with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock). That’s the size of the lower 48 states.
In other words, the organic niche is just that—a niche, and a feel-good boutique system for those who can afford it. But the idea that its widespread use would bring widespread benefits to humanity belongs in the compost.
“Profiling” is stereotyping. For some reason it’s the preferred synonym.
Let’s for the moment call it stereotyping. We all stereotype all the time. We judge people as soon as we meet them by their appearance, what they say and how they say it, the first impression they make. Later, if we get to know them, we may revise our first judgment. Stereotyping is a very useful short-cut. We may like the idea of suspending judgment until all or many facts are in, but we haven’t the time. We don’t live like that.
Instant judgment may involve liking or disliking this or that “type” of person. Taking an instant dislike to someone is not the same as wishing him to be discriminated against legally or socially. Only collectivists think that way. Individualists, though certainly and necessarily capable of stereotyping, will always be aware that no generalization about class, race, gender, style, accent, origins, descent or anything else used to categorize people, however broadly true, can be assumed to characterize any single individual in that group.
When it comes to the adherents of a particular ideology, however, there is a difference. They are identifying themselves with a group. If a member of that group wears a badge, in dress, for instance, or a pin in the lapel, he is asking to be identified with that set of ideas, that movement, those aims.
And if that group, motivated by those ideas and aims, has declared itself your enemy, and has attacked you violently, you would be very foolish not to take particular precautions for your safety whenever a person obviously belonging to that group approaches you. He may have no thought of harming you. But you’d be an idiot not to beware of him.
In connection with these thoughts, here is a fresh look at “racial profiling”.
In an article that we think shows much common sense, Selwyn Duke makes the case for it.
The critics of Arizona’s new immigration law complain that it will lead to “racial profiling.” In response, the law’s defenders point out that the legislation specifically forbids the practice.
Both groups are wrong.
They accept two false suppositions. The first is that the practice in question is immoral.
The second is that “racial profiling” actually exists.
Generally speaking, it does not — that is, not in the sense of a phenomenon widespread enough to warrant continual media attention. In reality, there are only two kinds of profiling: good profiling and bad profiling. Let’s discuss the difference.
Profiling is simply a method by which law enforcement can determine the probability that an individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent. Now, when making this assessment, many different factors are considered. Some have to do with age, sex, dress, behavior, the car being driven, whether or not a person is “out of place” (e.g., a well-dressed fellow in a BMW cruising a drug-plagued neighborhood), and, yes, some have to do with race. But whatever the criteria, good profiling chooses them in accordance with sound criminological science. And as soon as we subordinate that standard to anything, such as political or social concerns, we have rendered it bad profiling.
We also render it unfair. That is, contrary to the notion that using racial factors in profiling is discriminatory, in the negative sense of the word, it is actually the refusal to consider them that is so.
I’ll explain. I’m a member of one of the most profiled groups in the country: males. Law enforcement views us much more suspiciously than females because we commit an inordinate amount of crime. And we aren’t the only ones, as youths also attract a jaundiced eye for the same reason. Now, if considering race when profiling is “racism,” isn’t considering sex and age “sexism” and “ageism”?
The truth is that none of these things are any kind of ism. And is it just to discriminate among higher-crime-incidence groups — scrutinizing some more closely but not others — based on whether they are in or out of favor politically and socially?
This is where the capital-D discrimination lies. If you’re male or a teen, you’re fair game. But, for instance, when the matter is Muslims, the double standards fly. When seeking to identify terrorists, the people who have no problem placing the probing eye on males warn that Muslims mustn’t receive extra scrutiny. But why? As far as the terrorist threat facing the West goes, “Muslim” is a more consistent part of the terrorist profile than is “male,” as there have been more female suicide bombers than non-Muslim ones.
Some may say we must be especially sensitive with regard to race (yes, I realize “Islamic” isn’t a race), but this is silly for two reasons. First, it is a hang-up; it is suicidal to sacrifice blood on the altar of political correctness. Second, there is no blanket refusal to consider racial factors when profiling. For example, part of the profile for serial killers and methamphetamine dealers is “Caucasian.”
Likewise, given that more than 90 percent of the illegals in Arizona hail from Mexico and Latin America, isn’t “Hispanic” part of the relevant profile here? Mind you, the operative word is “part.” To say “This person appears to be of Mexican descent, so he must be illegal” is no different than assuming that every white person deals meth — it would be bad profiling.
As Dr. Walter Williams once wrote:
What about using race or ethnicity as proxies for some unobserved characteristic? Some racial and ethnic groups have a higher incidence of mortality from various diseases than the national average. In 1998, mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases were approximately 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates were almost five times higher among Vietnamese women in the United States than among white women. The Pima Indians of Arizona have the highest known diabetes rates in the world. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men.
After Dr. Williams discusses how the prevalence of certain diseases correlates with race, he asks, “Would one condemn a medical practitioner for advising greater screening and monitoring of black males for cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer, or greater screening and monitoring for cervical cancer among Vietnamese American females, and the same for diabetes among Pima Indians?”
Unfortunately, when the matter is the social disease of crime, we not only condemn such a practice, we fire the good diagnosticians. For example, in an older article about former attorney general John Ashcroft’s investigation of 13 cities for “racial profiling” (thank you, George Bush), ABC reports on efforts to eradicate the practice and writes, “police officials who defended profiling have been removed from their posts.” Translation: Our security has been placed in the hands of PC lackeys.
Whether the crime is violating borders, bodies or buildings, whether it’s committed in Arizona or Anytown USA, good profiling is not just part of law enforcement.
It’s the heart of law enforcement.
What do you think the legal standard of “reasonable suspicion” is? What should the police be suspicious of? Only males, teens, and whites in certain situations?
The bigots are not those who support good profiling, which scrutinizes all groups in accordance with sound criminological science. It is the Times Square bombing-analyst hopers (such as Contessa Brewer) who play pin the tale on the honkey …
America, we need to end our hang-up with race — before it ends us.